How do I elevate the level of discourse?

In many classrooms, scientific discourse is happening, but it is not always doing the intellectual work we intend. Students may be talking, responding, or even agreeing with one another, yet the discussion stays close to the surface. Elevating the level of discourse is not about increasing participation for its own sake. It is about increasing the quality of thinking students bring to the shared sensemaking work of science.

In KnowAtom classrooms, high-quality discourse is the engine that moves students from observing a phenomenon to constructing and revising evidence-based explanations together. This article explores what distinguishes low-quality from high-quality discourse and how teachers can intentionally model and release formative assessment moves that push student thinking deeper over time.

What’s the difference between low-quality and high-quality discourse?

The difference is not volume or enthusiasm. It is the relationship between ideas.

Lower-quality discourse tends to:

• Focus on reporting observations without connecting them
• Stay at the level of “what happened” rather than “why it happened”
• Treat ideas as finished statements rather than revisable thinking
• Rely on the teacher to evaluate correctness

Higher-quality discourse shows students:

• Building on one another’s ideas
• Making their reasoning visible
• Testing claims against evidence and models
• Noticing gaps, assumptions, and implications

Ron Ritchhart describes this shift as moving from talk that displays knowledge to talk that advances understanding (Ritchhart, 2015). In KnowAtom lessons, this shift is intentional and supported by how discussions are structured across the lesson sequence.

What this looks like across grade spans

• Kindergarten: In Weather in Our World, students move beyond naming weather conditions to explaining how sunlight affects temperature. Higher-quality discourse sounds like students connecting shade, surface materials, and warmth rather than listing observations one at a time.
• Grades 1–2: In Matter All Around Us, students shift from naming material properties to explaining why certain properties make materials better suited for specific uses.
• Grades 3–5: In Sound Waves or Energy Transfers, discourse improves when students link variables, such as force and amplitude, rather than describing each factor in isolation.
• Grades 6–8: In Atoms and Molecules or Changing Environments, students elevate discourse by examining the implications of a claim across systems or scales, not just defending a single data point.

Comparing what was said to what was implied

One powerful way to elevate discourse is to help students notice the difference between the words spoken and the reasoning underneath them.

When a student says, “The plant grew taller with more light,” the literal statement is descriptive. The implied thinking may be causal, conditional, or incomplete.

Teachers can model this distinction by pausing the discussion and asking the class to unpack the idea:

• What is the claim?
• What reasoning connects the claim to the evidence?
• What assumptions are we making?

This move aligns with formative assessment practices that surface student thinking rather than evaluate it immediately. Research shows that making reasoning visible supports deeper conceptual understanding and transfer (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Grade-span examples in KnowAtom lessons

• K: In Living Things Change, a student might say, “Plants need water.” The teacher helps students consider what that implies about growth, wilting, or survival.
• 1–2: In Animals on Earth, students compare insect structures. A statement about body parts opens space to discuss function and survival.
• 3–5: In Magnetism and Electricity, students stating that magnets attract metal can be guided to clarify which metals and why.
• 6–8: In Forests, students move from stating that drought affects trees to explaining how limited resources change photosynthesis and growth rates.

Over time, students begin to ask these clarifying questions of one another without teacher prompting.

Considering what was not said

High-level discourse often depends on noticing absences, not just contributions.

What data was not addressed?
Which variable was left out?
What alternative explanation has not been considered?

This practice supports what Project Zero researchers describe as “thinking about thinking,” where students monitor the completeness and coherence of their explanations (Ritchhart, Church, & Morrison, 2011).

In KnowAtom discussions, teachers model this by returning to the investigative model, data tables, or concept maps and asking students to identify gaps.

Classroom examples across grade levels

• K: In Making Things Move, students may discuss pushes but not pulls. The class revisits the model to identify the missing force.
• 1–2: In Land and Water, students may describe landforms without discussing water flow. The teacher prompts attention to what was not observed yet.
• 3–5: In Water on Earth, students may explain evaporation without addressing condensation.
• 6–8: In Climate and Human Activity, students may discuss temperature change without referencing long-term data patterns.

As students internalize this move, they begin to treat silence and absence as productive signals for further thinking.

“If this is true, what else must also be true?”

This question is a hallmark of high-quality scientific reasoning. It pushes discourse beyond defending isolated claims toward examining coherence across a system.

This conditional reasoning move helps students test the strength of an explanation by exploring its implications. If a claim cannot hold under related conditions, it needs revision.

Research on teaching for understanding emphasizes that knowledge deepens when learners examine consequences and connections, not just accuracy (Wiske, 1998).

Applying this move in KnowAtom discussions

• K: In Weather in Our World, if darker surfaces warm faster, what else should we observe in sunlight?
• 1–2: In Engineering Homes, if thicker walls keep heat inside, what should happen when temperatures drop?
• 3–5: In Light Energy and Matter, if light travels in straight lines, what must be true about shadows and reflections?
• 6–8: In From Molecules to Organisms, if cells require energy to function, what else must be true about respiration rates under different conditions?

When students routinely ask this question of one another, discourse shifts from persuasive talk to collective explanation-building.

Modeling and releasing formative discourse moves

Teachers elevate discourse by first modeling these thinking moves explicitly and then releasing them to students.

Early in the year, teachers:

• Name the move being used
• Connect it to the investigation or model
• Use sentence frames strategically

As the year progresses, teachers listen for evidence that students are:

• Clarifying implications
• Identifying missing information
• Testing the coherence of claims independently

This gradual release aligns with formative assessment research showing that feedback is most powerful when it builds learner agency rather than dependence (Black & Wiliam, 2009).

In high-functioning KnowAtom classrooms, the teacher’s voice becomes quieter not because discourse is less rigorous, but because students are carrying the intellectual responsibility for advancing ideas.

Referring back to shared models and data 

What the teacher might say:

• “Which part of our model helps explain that?”
• “Can someone point us back to the data that supports this idea?”
• “I’m hearing two different interpretations. Where do we see evidence for each in the graph or text?”
• “Before we decide, let’s anchor this in what we observed yesterday.”

What this does:
The teacher treats models, data, and observations as authoritative sources rather than positioning themselves as the authority. Students learn that explanations must be grounded in shared evidence, not personal opinion or teacher approval.

Questioning the completeness of explanations

What the teacher might say:

• “What part of that explanation still feels unfinished?”
• “What questions does this explanation raise for you?”
• “Does this account for all the evidence we’ve collected, or is something missing?”
• “Who sees a gap or a place where we need to be more precise?”

What this does:
The teacher normalizes incompleteness as part of learning and positions students as critics and refiners of ideas. Explanations are treated as provisional and improvable, not final answers to be judged right or wrong.

Revising ideas publicly based on peer reasoning

What the teacher might say:

• “Who is thinking differently now after hearing that?”
• “Can you restate your idea using what you just heard from your classmate?”
• “What would you change in your explanation based on that reasoning?”
• “Let’s pause. Has anyone revised their thinking?”

What this does:
The teacher makes revision visible and valued. Changing one’s mind is framed as intellectual growth rather than a mistake, reinforcing that learning happens through interaction with others’ ideas.

Using conditional language to test claims

What the teacher might say:

• “If that were true, what would we expect to see?”
• “Under what conditions would this explanation not hold up?”
• “Let’s test that idea. What would have to be happening for this to work?”
• “What depends on what here?”

What this does:
The teacher pushes students to reason causally and hypothetically, treating ideas as testable and connected rather than fixed statements. Students learn to examine implications and limits, which is central to scientific sensemaking.

What to listen for when discourse is truly elevated

Teachers know discourse has shifted when students are doing more than responding to prompts. They are actively using ideas, evidence, and one another’s reasoning to advance collective understanding. The examples below illustrate what this can sound like in practice and why these moves matter.

Resources

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research.
• Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating Cultures of Thinking. Jossey-Bass.
• Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making Thinking Visible. Jossey-Bass.
• Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for Understanding. Jossey-Bass.